Illegal aliens rescue man from existential funk
Bookworm on Apr 11 2008 at 12:50 pm | Filed under: Hollywood, Media matters
Yes, yes — it really happened . . . in movieland. The Times raves about a movie in which a depressed white man is lifted from his funk by sharing his life with two illegal immigrants whose arrest (for being illegally here), lifts him out of his torpor and, in the act of trying to rescue them, enables them to realize fully his human potential. Did I mention that they’re probably Muslim illegal aliens (the Times doesn’t clarify)? Who writes this stuff, anyway?
Email This Post To A Friend
36 Responses to “Illegal aliens rescue man from existential funk”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you only watch movies like Firefly and Stardust, Book, you won’t ever have to wonder about “who writes this stuff” ; )
“Who writes this stuff, anyway?” People with imaginations. People who value humanity. People who generate hope.
People completely given over to debased liberal fantasy.
Reality is often something other:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=578
Who is she?
Who is she?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips
I saw the trailer for that movie maybe a month ago in the theater - about half way through it was clear where it was going and it’s just crazy-making to be a captive audience and have to watch them play it out. Did the article mention he met them because they were squatting in his apartment? Argh!
Helen Losse writes above:
“Who writes this stuff, anyway?” People with imaginations. People who value humanity. People who generate hope.
Oh, Helen…
Helen, we tend to write approvingly about ideas that match our own, that confirm our worldview. I believe that your response tells us a great deal about you! That this story represents imagination to you, and that its theme is about valuing all of humanity; that it contains hope.
What I see is indoctrination as fiction. Or masturbatory leftism without an original thought.
One of the reasons I reread Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged every so often is because of its worth as philosophy - ONE view of philosophy. As fiction, it is total dreck. It’s horrifyingly bad. Characters expressing fifty pages of pure philosophy aren’t intended to be real. It’s libertarian philosophy.
This movie is merely, to me, the same sort of fictional dreck. But the Hollywood writers, all caught up in their own leftist echo chamber, DON’T REALIZE IT! They keep cranking out the same dreck, over and over, and expect us all to take it in eye to brain as some sort of truth. But it’s just sugar-coated leftist philosophy, pure, and it’s not original. There’s nothing original. I get soooooo tired.
(The other half of Hollywood is focused on producing brain-dead special-effects extravaganzas targeted at the teenage or immature mind. At least your half is adult, I’ll give it that.)
But back to Ayn Rand. She too had imagination. She too valued humanity, all of it, and deeply! She too generated hope, as much of it as she could! Her philosophy was rightist-libertarian, is the only difference.
The creators of this film too have imagination, value humanity, and generate hope. From a leftist perspective, is all. The fact that you can’t see that commonality of purpose divorced from philosophical underpinnings is surprising to me.
Those of us on the right complain about this movie (and so many others like it) because it’s a direct translation of leftist-101 canon. There’s nothing original here. It’s drivel. Admire it for its philosophy if you agree with it, but don’t expect anyone to claim that it has a monopoly on imagination, on valuing humanity, on generating hope.
Apologies for an addendum… the movie cannot be both imaginative and pure drivel; I’m flawed in claiming both. I have not seen the movie. I’ve read about six reviews, some complimentary, some not. But the overall impression I get of it is that its themes are utterly typical “leftist-101″ themes, presented rather fetchingly. Thus my sense of drivel (nothing new here, utterly typical) and imagination (the fetchingly-presented part).
I probably wouldn’t be so disgusted… if I had as many rightist-philosophical movies given to me by Hollywood, that contained nothing new, but affirmed my world-view. I’d love to sit back and get one of those movies every single month the way you can on the Hollywood leftist side. It would make the popcorn taste so much better.
Hope that isn’t even real and isn’t based upon real world factors, is called “lying to get people killed” instead of generating “hope”.
In retrospect, people who are in a funk and are intensely self-absorbed, will require a more extreme shock to their systems in order for them to change their mental states or belief systems.
Since the Left does not work based upon the premise of free will, there is no need to shock anybody’s system with anything. All that is needed is brutal tyranny and forceful government policies designed to make people do the things that you want them to do.
It’s the difference between making someone happy by giving them flowers and helping them with their life and making someone happy by connecting electrical lines to the happy parts of their brain and giving them a taste of enforced happy juice.
Mike, I think you understand Hollywood perfectly. Only two things matter there. One is money. Whatever produces it. CGI, schlock, forumulaic action movies, boobs. The second is status. This is achieved by leftist posturing. There’s been a spate of antiwar movies (”Redacted” “Rendition” “Stop-Loss” “Lambs to Lions” or “Hams to Freon”— whatever— and “Valley of Elah”) none of which made money as far as I know. But they succeeded as “statements” and thus established the piously liberal bona fides of the movie makers, which earn status points. It is what motivates the human animal. To earn scads of money but also to hold your head up high because you did a “prestige” project and can say, well, money isn’t really important anyway.
This will go down as another box-office loser, like Syriana (spelling?) and the other leftist-tinged Hollywood productions that have dealt with the post 9/11 world. These movies sell better outside the US than inside the US.
So we’ve got about ten box-office losers that toe the leftist line on the Middle East, and only one movie (The Kingdom) that was somewhat middle of the road. Nothing, zero, that toes the rightist line.
Give us ONE good movie that unabashedly presents a pro-American view and tells a thrilling story, and the box-office would be simply phenomenal.
I’m in the middle of reading Sole Survivor by Marcus Luttrell. About Navy SEAL action in N. Afghanistan for which Lt. Michael Murphy was awarded Medal of Honor posthumously. I doubt there will be a movie version. But if certainly fits the bill you are describing, Mike. Instead I’m sure we will get more movies about vibrant, life embracing illegals from the Middle East or Latin America bringing dour and constipated Americans out of their funk.
“I probably wouldn’t be so disgusted… if I had as many rightist-philosophical movies given to me by Hollywood, that contained nothing new, but affirmed my world-view. I’d love to sit back and get one of those movies every single month the way you can on the Hollywood leftist side. It would make the popcorn taste so much better.”
Okay, so Hollywood does present more movies with left rather than right point of view.
But Mike, isn’t there a fly-over of military jets at every NASCAR race? Don’t soldiers carry the flag at every sporting event? (Like no other citizen can carry a flag!) Don’t the prayers before the events always thank the soldiers for their “sacrifice”? (When some of think the war is a big mistake.) Don’t you think liberals tire of that? And want something else with their hot dogs.
It all comes out in the wash. We approve what we approve and reject what we reject. Artists have always rocked the boat. Athletes love the status quo. Guess who’s more educated? Guess who’s making more money?
From JFK’s inaugural address:
“We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge — and more.”
Helen, I’m OK with the fly-overs and the flag toting soldiers on the playing field. (And I heard on the radio this AM that the book Sole Survivor IS being made into a movie.)
Who’s making more money? I don’t have stats to back up an argument, I would not assume athletes pull down more money. If you include popular movie actors and performing artists, artists pull down an enormous amount of money. And established people in the fine arts are quite wealthy too. A celebrated artist like Jeff Koons pulls down a lot of scratch, believe me, for work that’s essentially dreck. True, there are plenty of well paid pro athletes, but not every pro player pulls down the lucrative contract, and some of them have rather brief careers in the pros. In my own line of work I’ve dealt with a number of former pro players who were hardly rich, and ended up insolvent. And athletes always love the status quo? Jackie Robinson didn’t. Neither did Ali. The coach-dad of Venus and Serena has spouted remarks compatible with those of Reverend Wright in Chicago. And among many artists, liberal piety IS the status quo. It is certainly the ascendant philosophy in the arts, media and academia. And believe me, I’ve known a lot of artists, and many “rock the boat” purely out of reflex, not conviction. Art often has no convictions,and artists no coherent political philosophy. To quote Robert Conquest: it ought to be possible to dismiss the idea that any necessary correlation, individual or collective, exists between artistic culture and political maturity.
And, Helen, are you saying liberals are tired of or offended by the flag, the prayers and the thanking of soldiers before sporting events? Of course, I can’t imagine a liberal at a NASCAR event. Talk about fish out of water!
Ellie — so it has! I just googled that. We shall see.
xoxoxo Z
Z Darling!
Your comment about Google reminds me that the really, really, rich are neither artists nor athletes but the entrepreneurs! They have made our lives enormously better, healthier, easier, longer etc. While some walk on the dark side, many of these remarkable citizens walk in the light.
PS: Both Z and I meant, of course, Lone Survivor.
http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivor-Eyewitness-Account-Operation/dp/0316067601/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208021157&sr=8-1
Z, I’m not saying liberals are tired of or offended by the flag.
I’m saying, the “colors can be presented” by any American citizen. You don’t have to be a soldier to hold a flag while a group of Americans stand for the national Anthem. The flag belongs to Americans, not one group more than any other.
Nor do you have to thank God for the same thing (soldiers at war) at every event. There’s lots of things to be thankful for that have nothing to do with war. God was blessing us long before 9/11 and continues to do so all the time.
I’m saying that agenda (soldiers only holding flag, thanking God for soldiers in every prayer) is conservative, so no one here is complaining about it.
I’m saying that when movies present a liberal agenda and opening ceremonies present a conservative agenda, we all get both.
God was blessing us long before 9/11
God blessed the Union and the United States in warfare long before 9/11, yes. Since it is battles that decide a nation’s future and fate, I’m sure we are all very glad that the ancestors of Americans had divine providence on their side.
This will go down as another box-office loser, like Syriana (spelling?) and the other leftist-tinged Hollywood productions that have dealt with the post 9/11 world. These movies sell better outside the US than inside the US.
Given that Hollywood provides the major source of anti-American propaganda to Canada, Europe, and other foreign countries, that isn’t so surprising, Gringo.
You should hear conservatives in Alberta, Canada go on about how it is hard to defend America when every day of the year some anti-American can point to an American Hollywood production and say “see, the Americans hate themselves too”.
But Mike, isn’t there a fly-over of military jets at every NASCAR race?
A fly over of military jets does not reassure our insecurities concerning American problems, foreign and domestic.
A fake liberal propaganda movie supporting policies concerning immigrants does, however, reinforce a person’s world view and provides justifications that people can use in arguments.
A Republican propaganda movie made by Hollywood would look very much like 300, except historically accurate and with America as Sparta and the Persian envoys as GiMo detainees and … uh well Persians: Arabs too.
When Leonidas kicked the Persian diplomats into the never ending pit, that’s the kind of thing Americans should be seeing when it comes to diplomacy with Amanie in Iran.
A fake liberal propaganda or a Republican propaganda movie equal the same thing: fiction. Writers of fiction have no responsibility to “reassure our insecurities concerning American problems, foreign and domestic.” What they do have (as artists) is the opportunity to make us think. Last time I checked, thinking was good.
That depends on what you are thinking about.
Writers of fiction have no responsibility to “reassure our insecurities concerning American problems, foreign and domestic.”
That’s not what Hollywood said during WWII. Nor is it what they did. Remember Wake Island the movie where they had the Marines fight to the death because Hollywood didn’t want to embarrass the Roosevelt administration by showing the truth, which is that the Marines were ordered to surrender after their reinforcements were recalled by Roosevelt’s admiral, the one that replaced Kimmel.
“But Mike, isn’t there a fly-over of military jets at every NASCAR race? Don’t soldiers carry the flag at every sporting event? (Like no other citizen can carry a flag!) Don’t the prayers before the events always thank the soldiers for their “sacrifice”? (When some of think the war is a big mistake.) Don’t you think liberals tire of that? And want something else with their hot dogs.”
Hi Helen. Thank you for responding!
I’ve never watched a Nascar event… I suppose there might be a military fly-over at each.
I do know that in the twenty or so pro hockey, baseball, basketball games I’ve attended, I’ve never seen soldiers carrying the flag. Most importantly, why did you put “sacrifice” in quotes when discussing the prayers before events? There was a time when the Democrat party’s idea of patriotism included honoring the military.
None of these have anything to do with Hollywood. But I can see your point, there’s not much liberalism on display at sporting events.
“Artists have always rocked the boat. Athletes love the status quo. Guess who’s more educated? Guess who’s making more money?”
The people in Hollywood responsible for the status quo are NOT rocking the boat! They’re cranking out the same tired old cliches that they *all* believe in. I’m not talking about the actors, who aren’t responsible for the thematic content. Few if any of the writers, producers and directors are challenging themselves. Who is more educated? The writers, sure. Who’s making more money? The athletes!
Concerning the movie of “Lone Survivor”, well, I’ll keep my eye out for it.
But I remain fearful. Remember what Ron Howard and Brian Grazer did to “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.” Despite Jim Carrey’s excellent performance, consider what the original Seuss story had as its theme, and also remember how FAITHFUL the cartoon was to the theme.
The Whos of Whoville were the best possible of communities. Loving, sharing, celebrating their faith with a song, yet having a wild blast of a great time together. They were beset by the evil Grinch lurking just outside their community, who wished them nothing but malice and evil. Their profound grace and kindness redeemed the Grinch, saved him.
Now take a look at the movie. The Grinch was a misfit WITHIN the community as a child and the entire town of Whoville was peopled with intolerant, vicious, nasty people who spurned him and drove him out. And then HE redeems THEM.
The movie is a complete, total, 100% perversion of the theme of the original story. It is a deliberate assault on that theme. That’s what I’m used to getting from Hollywood these days.
“Lone Survivor” could easily suffer the same fate.
Helen says,
“I’m saying that when movies present a liberal agenda and opening ceremonies present a conservative agenda, we all get both.”
Helen, in general I agree with your point. But I’d like to point out the Super Bowl halftime shows rarely if ever have even an ounce of conservative theme to them.
I remember the halftime show with Janet Jackson’s and Justin Timberlake’s infamous wardrobe malfunction moment. I did not actually think that much of the moment when it happened. I was ALREADY seriously in a funk over everything that had gone before that moment! The entire rest of the halftime show, and the utter nihilism of it and of the commercials interspersed… for a half hour the worst of America was on display, with moment after moment of debasement building on top of the prior moment. I could not BELIEVE what I was seeing. The wardrobe malfunction was just the crowning moment of it, and for me, it wasn’t the worst by a long shot. But it’s all anyone remembers from that horrid, monstrous entire halftime show.
I thought from that entire halftime show that America looked like a thoroughly decadent, degraded, nihilistic, rotten at the core culture perfectly ready for complete collapse. Like the Roman debauchery at the end of that empire… it signaled to me that our time as an admirable culture might just be at an end, if this was exactly the image of ourselves that we wanted to send out to the rest of the world.
Any material can and will be used by Hollywood for anti-American propaganda purposes. Hollywood, is after all, the primary source of international anti-American propaganda material. Other countries use stuff from Hollywood to make the US look bad and Hollywood makes a buck from that.
The best that Hollywood can do is to do a Black Hawk Down movie based upon a novel by a man who just wanted to get to the truth of the Ranger’s mission in Somalia. Meaning, the best that Hollywood can do is to copy the truth that others have found out.
Japan is very experienced at converting written stories and mangas into animated movies and shows that are quite faithful to the plot and themes of the manga. In fact, Japan has a history of directly transfering mangas into animated movies, since it is the mangas, which are usually authored by one creative genius alone, which determine the art style, plot, pacing, and characterization of any animated shows or movies or ovas.
I never saw the Grinch movie but yes I am familiar with that “Hollywood twist” that inserts ideology and trendy liberal pieties in every production. You probably did not see the remake of The Manchurian Candidate — which completely inverted the original and used Corporate America as the Source of All Villainy.
And, Mike, that Superbowl debacle, Janet Jackson exposing her ninja throwing star nipple protector, was nothing! You want an example of decadent, degraded, nihilistic, rotten at the core culture, here’s for you, from our “European betters”:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/11/wopera111.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_12042008
I haven’t sen the Grinch movie. But throughout the ages stories have changed and grown. It all began (in the western world) in the oral tradition, when court jesters and the like were a form of entertainment for the rich. Legends grew a single person or event. The Arthurian legend grew from a warrior-chieftain, who later became Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor. That’s political. But “Men In Tights” takes Robin Hood to a new level: one some people hate. The church told its story through the cycle dramas and visual art. Films have been made from novels since we have had films. Art has always sprung from art.
As far as what Hollywood did during WWII, I don’t remember having not yet been born. But one must take care because some people try to pass fiction as documentary. It’s like the difference in fiction and nonfiction: The lines have been blurred. In recent years, the term “creative nonfiction” has attempted to explain what has happened all along. People’s opinions (religions, political views, etc.) have always affected their artistic creations, just as they affect every other part of their lives. Those rigid walls between disciplines were a lie. History is affected by sociology. Literature is a affected by both. Teaching a topic in all disciplines makes tremendous sense. and yes, I’ve wandered from the original topic. Thin boundaries, you know.
We may or may not like the “new twist” put on an old story, such as the Grinch movie, but it’s been going on the the dawn of mankind. And as for Janet’s wandering boob, we’ll I was in the kitchen getting half-time snacks and had to catch the replay. Time for a change. Bring the soldiers home. Create a kinder America. One that won’t embarrass. Time to vote for Clinton or Obama!!! LOL
A possible cure for thinking about yourself and those endless popularity contests is to try and increase your memory of events that are past your birthday.
A nation doesn’t exist to make people feel good about themselves, so that they can hold their head high and not be embarrassed to call themselves Americans.
All the twists in these various stories are designed to do one thing, which is to destroy America’s pride and appreciation of history and the collective experiences of humanity.
It is time to change that so that stories are made using propaganda principles to bolster people’s appreciation of history as well as their pride in themselves. But to accomplish the latter, one must get people to accomplish things of personal importance. The most efficient way to do that is to win a war for a nation’s destiny.
Yep, Y. , we need some good ol’ American propaganda. Let’s kick some foreign booty and get new material. It’s our destiny.
Propaganda makes people feel better or worse, but I’ll settle for the former.